D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Arilyn]

The primary problem with balance over time is that it assumes a group will start at first level and advance enough levels for it to kick in. When I played BECMI, AD&D 2e, and 3e, a lot of people started at third level just to have some measure of survivability. Plus, few campaigns ever had characters get very far into the double digits, especially the classes that were designed to shine at later levels and who advanced at slower rates in BECMI & 2e.

If you balance at the character level, then you can start at any level, play to any level, or even never gain any levels at all and be balanced for the whole run.

Yes, exactly. We are not advocating for characters to be exactly the same at any given task, but to be equal in "fun things to do" and to be able to share the spotlight. Having a weak MU with lousy hit points and one, hopefully, useful spell at first level, but then dominating the game later is poor game balance. Yeah, we kinda do want to balance on the micro.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yes, exactly. We are not advocating for characters to be exactly the same at any given task, but to be equal in "fun things to do" and to be able to share the spotlight. Having a weak MU with lousy hit points and one, hopefully, useful spell at first level, but then dominating the game later is poor game balance. Yeah, we kinda do want to balance on the micro.

More like on the mid-ro.

Doesn't need to be balanced per action, per round, or even per combat (although the latter is where you're starting to get pretty close), but over time just has too many assumptions that most groups don't stick to.

 

[Libramarian]

That said, I also believe that it is entirely fair and justifiable to be suspicious of the motivations behind wanting to implement "women are physical weaker than men" rule in an RPG. A lot of times, especially in this day and age, these types of decisions seem hide behind a shield of "simulationism" but also with the implicit (if not outright explicit) goal of riling up female gamers and others who'd like to see the hobby be a little more inclusive and welcoming, a kind of "screw you" to "SJWs" or whatnot. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it is a reality of our hobby, and one that I think everyone here has been dancing around (I would guess due to forum rules), but I think has been implicit on both sides (e.g; mentions about not caring about catering to the "PC" crowd). I've been trying, with those questions, to give the individuals in this particular discussion the benefit of the doubt (and I thank Igwilly for engaging in them!) but I was also trying to coyly indicate my own suspicions, when it would be have been more fair (and less jerk-ish) to be more direct about it.

I think in a discussion where [MENTION=6814449]tuxedoraptor[/MENTION] and [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] can freely express their desire for those with different elfgame preferences to be rendered infertile with a blunt instrument, those who want to say something to the effect of "screw you, SJW" probably feel free to do so.

I certainly don't think Gygax set out to offend women in AD&D with the female strength cap. He just didn't care about whether women liked the rules. Golden age D&D was a boys club where women were not oppressed or shunned, but simply ignored.

I can't think of any "save the princess" narratives in early D&D adventure modules* and hardly any female major characters. In both T1 and B1 two male adventurers live together in the same stronghold. There's almost an implication of ancient Greece-style heroic homosexuality.

*Except of course the execrable introductory adventure in Mentzer Basic. That text seems way more insidiously sexist to me than the Golden Age texts, with Elmore's blank-eyed bimbos and that weird line about going to the market being the high point of a woman's day.

But saying a character is not balanced at individual levels, but balances out (hopefully) over the long run is objectively poor game design. Why not balance per level?

Because some people think "longitudinal balance" is interesting? Good game design is about giving the players stimulating decisions to make. Balance only matters insofar as it affects this; it shouldn't be fetishized in itself. The imbalance in power between the classes at low and high levels in old D&D is not so severe that it ruins the playing experience of any particular class. 3.x is way worse in this regard.

Since the Gygaxian philosophy of balance was never embraced by subsequent game designers, I think we can assume it wasn't a great idea. Tools in the designers' toolbox have come and gone, and are constantly being refined. We are not seeing longitudinal balance make a comeback.

Class balance generally became more "longitudinal" all the way from original D&D through AD&D and 3.x. Then this was pared way back in 4e. 5e moves slightly towards LF/QW again. So your historical interpretation is completely wrong. For the vast majority of the game's history, longitudinal balance was apparently considered a good thing that should be emphasized.

 

[Libramarian]

This is going way beyond D&D, but about the verb "other", since it appeared earlier in the thread:

To me this is a debasement of the original concept from phenomenological philosophy. Some philosophers in fact consider radical Otherness the foundation of the ethical relation ("ethics precedes ontology"). I.e. to relate to someone ethically means in fact to consider them in their naked otherness, and emphatically not to immediately assimilate them into some schema of yours. This seems to me a far more profound idea than "othering" meaning basically the same thing as acting snobbishly aloof. It also seems a powerful critique of the "golden rule" -- I don't know that what's right for me is right for you.

Forcibly removing Native American children from their families and placing them in residential schools to ensure transmission of white/European culture is generally considered now to have been deeply unethical. But that's exactly what we might justify doing so as not to "other" them.

"I accept and I confess before God and you, our failures in the residential schools. We failed you. We failed ourselves. We failed God.

I am sorry, more than I can say, that we were part of a system which took you and your children from home and family.

I am sorry, more than I can say, that we tried to remake you in our image, taking from you your language and the signs of your identity."​

- Archbishop Michael Peers, A Step Along the Path

I do think there are parallels with a culture that expects women to have hard bodies, be ambitious in their careers, have emotionless casual sex, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

The primary problem with balance over time is that it assumes a group will start at first level and advance enough levels for it to kick in. When I played BECMI, AD&D 2e, and 3e, a lot of people started at third level just to have some measure of survivability. Plus, few campaigns ever had characters get very far into the double digits, especially the classes that were designed to shine at later levels and who advanced at slower rates in BECMI & 2e.

If you balance at the character level, then you can start at any level, play to any level, or even never gain any levels at all and be balanced for the whole run.

Balance is a pipe dream. It can't happen without making races and classes clones of each other, which drastically reduces how enjoyable game play is. As long as you're in the same ball park, that should be sufficient.

 

[Obryn]

I think in a discussion where [MENTION=6814449]tuxedoraptor[/MENTION] and [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] can freely express their desire for those with different elfgame preferences to be rendered infertile with a blunt instrument, those who want to say something to the effect of "screw you, SJW" probably feel free to do so.

Oh good we're still on that!

Balance is a pipe dream. It can't happen without making races and classes clones of each other, which drastically reduces how enjoyable game play is. As long as you're in the same ball park, that should be sufficient.

That's only if you're really terrible at game design, or are taking a sophomoric view of 'game balance.'

But saying a character is not balanced at individual levels, but balances out (hopefully) over the long run is objectively poor game design. Why not balance per level? Since the Gygaxian philosophy of balance was never embraced by subsequent game designers, I think we can assume it wasn't a great idea. Tools in the designers' toolbox have come and gone, and are constantly being refined. We are not seeing longitudinal balance make a comeback.

I wouldn't say objectively poor, but it definitely works best within certain game constraints - namely, extended campaigns. I think BECMI/RC does an overall much better job at it than AD&D does, but it's generally better-designed anyway so that's not too surprising.

Level limits are probably among the least entertaining ways to enforce balance, too, IMO. It's one of those things where your decisions don't have consequences until - potentially - years later, and "oops, can't get any better" kind of takes the gas out of the tank.

But yes, I think there's a good reason even most modern OSR games - the authors of whom know oldschool gaming more than most - tend to eschew this kind of longitudinal balance. I think Dungeon Crawl Classics, for example, is an outstanding game, and it sticks to unified advancement and gives all the classes cool things to do at each level.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

To me this is a debasement of the original concept from phenomenological philosophy. Some philosophers in fact consider radical Otherness the foundation of the ethical relation ("ethics precedes ontology"). I.e. to relate to someone ethically means in fact to consider them in their naked otherness, and emphatically not to immediately assimilate them into some schema of yours.

This seems a bit unfair to me. The "other" of moral philosophy is not necessarily the "other" of tribal psychology. I think it's more likely that these are simply two independent concepts of "othering", and to accuse either of debasing the other is simply equivocation.

 

[Maxperson]

That's only if you're really terrible at game design, or are taking a sophomoric view of 'game balance.'

Given that no RPG has ever been balanced, it sucks that you think that every RPG designer is terrible at game design.

 

[Obryn]

Given that no RPG has ever been balanced, it sucks that you think that every RPG designer is terrible at game design.

Brother. Come on. Either you're being unreasonably strict regarding the definition of "balance" and making the bar so high that it's impossible to cross, or you're ignoring a lot of excellent game design. Or maybe both.

 

[Maxperson]

Brother. Come on. Either you're being unreasonably strict regarding the definition of "balance" and making the bar so high that it's impossible to cross, or you're ignoring a lot of excellent game design. Or maybe both.

Not me. I'm perfectly fine with games that are not balanced. I had lots of fun with 1e-3e and 5e, none of which were even close to being balanced. Had a blast with Marvel Superheroes in the 80's and 90's(not balanced).